Received: by 10.224.105.205 with SMTP id u13mr3864998qao.6.1352313526782;
        Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:38:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.155.70 with SMTP id i46mr979310yhk.3.1352313525470; Wed,
 07 Nov 2012 10:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Path: gf5ni18188417qab.0!nntp.google.com!c7no10489320qap.0!postnews.google.com!m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.79.173.135; posting-account=CBZzyQkAAADa8LlO-8hxEObjm8IdMLIc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.79.173.135
References: <23af0882-de8f-404a-b9a5-b2370aede7e6@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
 <MD25GL.13DB@kithrup.com> <0c1881d2-f8f7-4052-995e-3f423a69b423@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <51899df5-5185-491e-bbc7-36f832c01971@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
 Trident/4.0; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <5e6ddbfb-a399-41dc-a3e9-4082cc93c67a@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: A Hand from a Sectional Swiss
From: Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:38:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Nov 6, 9:25=A0pm, mc11001...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:42:12 PM UTC-5, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 3:44=A0am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> > > In article <23af0882-de8f-404a-b9a5-b2370aede...@j10g2000yqc.googlegr=
oups.com>,
>
> > > Will in New Haven =A0<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > > >You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
>
> > > >first seat, no one vulnerable:
>
> > > >XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
>
> > > >What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4=
H
>
> > > >bid) and 4H
>
> > > I have to admit that the information about the conditions and my
>
> > > teammates doesn't really affect my opinion of the actions. =A0Maybe
>
> > > I'm insufficiently subtle.
>
> > > Pass: =A00. =A0This hand screams for *some* kind of action.
>
> > > 1H: =A0100. =A0You have two-plus honor tricks, your hand easily meets=
 the
>
> > > rule of 22. =A0The plan is to show a minimum opener with long hearts.
>
> > > 3H: =A040. =A0Too much defense; and there may be no need to preempt (=
it's not
>
> > > guaranteed that the opponents have a fit in spades).
>
> > > 4H: =A050. =A0This could work out, but it feels like it overstates th=
e
>
> > > heart suit a bit, and as with 3H it could easily be higher than you
>
> > > need to go.
>
> > > 4C: =A00. =A0I've never played Namyats but from what I've read this b=
id
>
> > > shows a noticeably better hand than the above, so this combines the
>
> > > downsides of 4H with the chance of deceiving partner.
>
> > I opened 1H but I do have a comment about the discussion of 4C versus
>
> > 4H. When Namyats came out, it was said that it allowed a player to
>
> > divide his 4H openings into the weaker and the stronger ones. The idea
>
> > that 4C shows a "noticably better hand than this," when this hand is,
>
> > in my opinion, too strong for either preempt, shows where Namyats has
>
> > moved.
>
> > At one time, Namyats showed a hand where 1H and 4H were both
>
> > considered. Now it seems to show a hand where 1H and 2C are both
>
> > considered. Hands that are opened 4C _never_ seem to look like hands
>
> > that someone, absent the convention, would have opened 4H.
>
> You haven't seen what some people will open 4H then. =A0(I've seen people=
 open 4H on hands where I would have considered 2C.)

Well, yes, Grace P used to do that but she is deceased. Not for
opening over-strength 4M though.

>
> The hand in this thread is atypical since 4H openings often feature an 8-=
card suit (and, in my experience, 4C Namyats *usually* feature an 8-card su=
it). =A0So for me, this is a maximum of side-strength for a 4C opening, but=
 short on playing tricks since the trump suit is so bad. =A0(For what it's =
worth, if this were at favorable rather than neither, I might actually pref=
er 4C to 4H, but that's because I might open 4H on real garbage at IMPs the=
n.)

Exactly, 4C was supposed to be _the stronger preempt_ and not a strong
hand. Opening 4C on a hand one would not open 4H when not playing
Namyats seems odd.


=A0I can't recall ever opening Namyats with a hand worth only 5 trump
tricks, and equal vul doesn't seem like the time to start.

>
> And, for what it's worth, I do refuse to play Namyats when playing strong=
 club systems, for the explicit reason that most Namyats hands can comforta=
bly be opened 1C.

Oddly enough, when I got talked into playing a Precision variant a few
months ago my partner insisted on Namyats because 1H would be an
underbid and 1C would promise more HCP. No decisions based on this
agreement ever needed to be made. As is often the case.

--
Will in New Haven